DATA SOURCES: A search of PubMed and other electronic databases comparing LARR and ORR between Jan 2000 and June 2016 was performed. Histopathological variables analyzed included; location of rectal tumors; complete and incomplete TME; positive and negative circumferential resection margins (+/-CRM); positive distal resected margins (+DRM); distance of tumor from DRM; number of lymph nodes harvested; resected specimen length; tumor size and perforated rectum.
RESULTS: Fourteen RCTs totaling 3843 patients (LARR = 2096, ORR = 1747) were analyzed. Comparable effects were noted for all these histopathological variables except for the variable perforated rectum which favored ORR.
CONCLUSIONS: LARR compares favorably to ORR for rectal cancer treatment. However, there is significantly higher risk of rectal perforation during LARR compared to ORR.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A search of the Medline, Embase, Science Citation Index, Current Contents and PubMed databases identified English-language randomized clinical trials comparing LARR and ORR. The meta-analysis was prepared in accordance with the PRISMA statement. Thirteen outcome variables were analyzed. Random effects meta-analyses were performed due to heterogeneity.
RESULTS: A total of 14 randomized clinical trials that included 3843 rectal resections (LARR 2096, ORR 1747) were analyzed. The summary point estimates favored LARR for the intraoperative blood loss, commencement of oral intake, first bowel movement, and length of hospital stay. There was significantly longer duration of operating time of 38.29 minutes for the LARR group. Other outcome variables such as total complications, postoperative pain, postoperative ileus, abdominal abscesses, postoperative anastomotic leak, reintervention and postoperative mortality rates were found to have comparable outcomes for both cohorts.
CONCLUSIONS: LARR was associated with significantly reduced blood loss, quicker resumption of oral intake, earlier return of gastrointestinal function, and shorter length of hospital stay at the expense of significantly longer operating time. Postoperative morbidity and mortality and analgesia requirement for both these groups were comparable. LARR seems to be a safe and effective alternative to ORR; however, it needs to be performed in established colorectal units with experienced laparoscopic surgeons.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Searches of electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane) were undertaken for randomized controlled trials describing weight loss outcomes in adults at 5 years postoperatively. Where sufficient data was available to undertake meta-analysis, the Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman estimation method for random effects model was utilized. The review was registered with PROSPERO and reported following in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses.
RESULTS: Five studies met the inclusion criteria totaling 1028 patients (LVSG=520, LRYGB=508). Moderate but comparable levels of bias were observed within studies. Statistically significant body mass index loss ranged from -11.37 kg/m (range: -6.3 to -15.7 kg/m) in the LVSG group and -12.6 kg/m (range: -9.5 to -15.4 kg/m) for LRYGB at 5 years (P<0.001). Systematic review suggested that LRYGB produced a greater weight loss expressed as percent excess weight and percent excess body mass index loss than LVSG: this was not corroborated in the meta-analysis.
CONCLUSIONS: Five year weight loss outcomes suggest both LRYGB and LVSG are effective in achieving significant weight loss at 5 years postoperatively, however, differences in reporting parameters limit the ability to reliably compare the outcomes using statistical methods. Furthermore, results may be impacted by large dropout rates and per protocol analysis of the 2 largest included studies. Further long-term studies are required to contradict or validate the results of this meta-analysis.
METHODS: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was undertaken using the PRISMA guidelines to investigate the postoperative impact on diabetes resolution following LVSG versus LRYGB.
RESULTS: Seven RCTs involving a total of 732 patients (LVSG n = 365, LRYGB n = 367) met inclusion criteria. Significant diabetes resolution or improvement was reported with both procedures across all time points. Similarly, measures of glycemic control (HbA1C and fasting blood glucose levels) improved with both procedures, with earlier improvements noted in LRYGB that stabilized and did not differ from LVSG at 12 months postoperatively. Early improvements in measures of insulin resistance in both procedures were also noted in the studies that investigated this.
CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review of RCTs suggests that both LVSG and LRYGB are effective in resolving or improving preoperative type 2 diabetes in obese patients during the reported 3- to 5-year follow-up periods. However, further studies are required before longer-term outcomes can be elucidated. Areas identified that need to be addressed for future studies on this topic include longer follow-up periods, standardized definitions and time point for reporting, and financial analysis of outcomes obtained between surgical procedures to better inform procedure selection.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: RCTs comparing the weight loss outcomes following LVSG and LRYGB in adult population between January 2000 and November 2015 were selected from PubMed, Medline, Embase, Science Citation Index, Current Contents, and the Cochrane database. The review was prepared in accordance with Preferred Reporting of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA).
RESULTS: Nine unique RCTs described over 10 publications involving a total of 865 patients (LVSG, n=437; LRYGB, n=428) were analyzed. Postoperative follow-up ranged from 3 months to 5 years. Twelve-month excess weight loss (EWL) for LVSG ranged from 69.7% to 83%, and for LRYGB, ranged from 60.5% to 86.4%. A number of studies reported slow weight gain between the second and third years of postoperative follow-up ranging from 1.4% to 4.2%EWL. This trend was seen to continue to 5 years postoperatively (8% to 10%EWL) for both procedures.
CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, LRYGB and LVSG are comparable with regards to the weight loss outcomes in the short term, with LRYGB achieving slightly greater weight loss. Slow weight recidivism is observed after the first postoperative year following both procedures. Long-term reporting of outcomes obtained from well-designed studies using intention-to-treat analyses are identified as a major gap in the literature at present.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: RCTs comparing postoperative comorbid disease resolution such as hypertension, dyslipidemia, obstructive sleep apnea, joint and musculoskeletal conditions, gastroesophageal reflux disease, and menstrual irregularities following LVSG and LRYGB were included for analysis. The studies were selected from PubMed, Medline, EMBASE, Science Citation Index, Current Contents, and the Cochrane database and reported on at least one comorbidity resolution or improvement. The present work was undertaken according to the Preferred Reporting Items of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). The Jadad method for assessment of methodological quality was applied to the included studies.
RESULTS: Six RCTs performed between 2005 and 2015 involving a total of 695 patients (LVSG n = 347, LRYGB n = 348) reported on the resolution or improvement of comorbid disease following LVSG and LRYGB procedures. Both bariatric procedures provide effective and almost comparable results in improving or resolving these comorbidities.
CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review of RCTs suggests that both LVSG and LRYGB are effective in resolving or improving preoperative nondiabetic comorbid diseases in obese patients. While results are not conclusive at this time, LRYGB may provide superior results compared to LVSG in mediating the remission and/or improvement in some conditions such as dyslipidemia and arthritis.
METHODS: A meta-analysis and systematic review of MEDLINE, PubMed Central (via PubMed), Embase (via Ovid), SCOPUS, ScienceDirect, Google Scholar, SCI and Cochrane Library databases were undertaken. Seven randomized controlled trials assessing the outcomes of PSR and POMR were analyzed in accordance with the PRISMA statement. The risk of bias was assessed using the Rob2 tool.
RESULTS: According to the pooled analysis, POMR significantly reduced the incidence of IH compared to the PSR (OR 5.82 [95% CI 2.69, 12.58] P
METHODS: Electronic databases (Pubmed, EMBASE, CINAHL) were searched for RCTs conducted in adults (>18y) that compared the 5-year- outcomes of LVSG to LRYGB and described comorbidity outcomes were included. Where data allowed, effect sizes were calculated using the Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman estimation method for random effects model. Presence of bias was assessed with Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 and funnel plots, and certainty of evidence evaluated by GRADE. The study prospectively registered with PROSPERO (CRD42018112054).
RESULTS: Three RCTs (LVSG=254, LRYGB=255) met inclusion criteria and reported on chronic disease outcomes. Improvement and/or resolution of hypertension favoured LRYGB (odds ratio 0.49, 95% CI 0.29, 0.84; P =0.03). Trends favoring LRYGB were seen for type 2 diabetes and dysplidemia, and LVSG for sleep apnea and back/joint conditions ( P >0.05). The certainty of evidence associated with each assessed outcome ranged from low to very low, in the setting of 'some' to 'high' bias assessed as being present.
CONCLUSION: Both LRYGB and LVSG are effective in providing long-term improvements in commonly experienced obesity-related comorbidities; however, the limited certainty of the evidence does not allow for strong clinical conclusions to be made at this time regarding benefit of one procedure over the other.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: Randomized controlled trials evaluating the effects of these 2 treatment modalities were searched from PubMed and other electronic databases between January 1991 and July 2018. The outcome variables analyzed included operating time, complications, recurrence of HH or wrap migration, reoperation, hospital stay and quality of life.
RESULTS: Five randomized controlled trials totaling 478 patients (suture=222, mesh=256) were analyzed. For reoperation variable, the odds ratio was significantly 3.26 times higher for the suture group. For recurrence of HH, the odds ratio for the suture group was nonsignificantly 1.65 times higher compared with the mesh group. Comparable effects were noted for all other variables.
CONCLUSIONS: Mesh repair seems to be superior to suture cruroplasty for large HH repair. Therefore, the routine use of mesh may be advantageous in selected cases.